Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasybaseballarbitration.com


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Valley2 city ‽ 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantasybaseballarbitration.com

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Clearly written by someone with a COI. Is it notable? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Is it an advertisement? "The FBA is your supreme court Justice for any Fantasy Baseball-related disputes"; for a very reasonable fee, of course.  Mandsford (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete You know that fantasy sports are going too far when you have fantasy arbitration involved. Right now it's unnotable and does not have current popularity (despite having a big baseball journal behind it). I just hope it stays a minor site (anyone seeing a Fantasy Sports Court court show?).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am finding no reliable sources on this. Cazort (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete An advertisment for a non-notable website. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (Could have sworn I'd tagged this one. Must be carrying on editing in dreams...) Not notable, probably unnecessary (not a criterion for deletion - or is it?), and a bit spammy. Peridon (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changes made by creator to article so far don't change my opinion. Peridon (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article redone to include news quote on subject and input of other similar websites as well as removed any semmingly advertisement vervage. Spdevry4 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * this subject is a major storyline in fantasy sports. articles have been done on ESPN, Sporting News, Chicago Tribute among the few... some sports lawyers are starting to provide the service. I've search the web and I chose this one because it is the best looking and most professional of the lot. Spdevry4 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The chicago tribune article listed as a "source" does not even mention this site by name. Rather, it is written about Fantasy sports arbitration in general.  The fact that it is written about that subject and yet does not even mention this site is consistent with deleting, not keeping.  The other sources are all self-published by organizations connected to this subject and thus aren't independent--which is necessary to establish notability.  Cazort (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is why we have Fantasy sport. But if there is no significant coverage of this particular website, then it shouldn't have its own article. ←  Spidern  →  17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. User:RHaworth tagged Fantasy sports arbitration for deletion...but the template he gave linked to this deletion discussion and not its own deletion discussion.  I think this page is not notable but I think that that page (as the Chicago tribune article mentioned above supports) might possibly be notable and worth keeping.  How can we create a real deletion discussion for that article?  I'd hate to see that page swept away just because this one gets deleted?  I thought each page needed a separate discussion?  I'm confused.  Cazort (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Explanation He didn't tag it for AfD - he prodded it. The link to here is for an example of the concept of fantasy arbitration. Peridon (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry but this website just isn't significant enough to merit an article. Also, the article is blatant spam. ←  Spidern  →  17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Idiotic comment Why don't they make up fantasy panels of lawyers to arbitrate the fantasy disputes? Obviously you couldn't use Messrs Mason or Rumpole, but if there were some way of assessing some real lawyers' recent performances, panels could be drafted from a body of them.... Free idea - just give Peridon a mention when you set it up. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.